The main legal point established in the judgment is that a member of a rifle club or association can only use a .22 bore rifle or an air rifle for target practice and cannot possess it at all times, except for the limited period of its use for target practice or competition.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant herein against the judgment dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 11410/2021, wherein the Court dismissed the Writ Petition preferred by the Appellant-herein. The Appellant-herein had preferred the underlying writ petition challenging a communication dated 31.08.2021 issued by the Office of the Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing) which was based on the amendments made to Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arms Act') by way of the Arms (Amendment) Act 2019 (hereinafter referred to as `the 2019 Amendment'). The instant appeal raises a question regarding the interpretation of Section 3 of the Arms Act i.e., whether a member of the Rifle Club or Rifle Association, which is licensed and recognized by the Central Government, can, in addition to two fire arms, possess a .22 bore rifle or an air rifle for target practice or not.

2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the instant appeal are that the Appellant herein, who is a designated Senior Advocate of this Court and who is a life member of the National Rifle Association of India (NRAI) had three fire arms, namely, one .22 bore target pistol, one .22 bore rifle and one .32 bore revolver. These fire arms have been duly endorsed on the license of the Appellant. It is stated that prior to the 2019 Amendment, Section 3(2) of the Arms Act permitted a person to acquire, have in his possession or carry, at any time, three fire arms. It is stated that in 2019 there was an amendment to the Arms Act by which the number of fire arms which could be acquired, possessed or carried, at any time, by a person was reduced from three firearms to two firearms. Section 3(2) of the Arms Act, as amended in 2019, reads as under:

"3(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no person, other than a person referred to in sub-section (3), shall acquire, have in his possession or carry, at any time, more than two firearm:

Provided that a person who has in his possession more firearms than three at the commencement of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 1983 (25 of 1983), may retain with him any three of such firearms and shall deposit, within ninety days from such commencement, the remaining firearms with the officer in charge of the nearest police station or, subject to the conditions prescribed for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 21, with a licensed dealer or, where such person is a member of the armed forces of the Union, in a unit armoury referred to in that sub-section. [Provided that a person who has in his possession more firearms than two at the commencement of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019, may retain with him any two of such firearm and shall deposit, within one year from such commencement, the remaining firearm with the officer in charge of the nearest police station or, subject to the conditions prescribed for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 21, with a licensed dealer or, where such person is a member of the armed forces of the Union, in a unit armoury referred to in that sub-section after which it shall be delicensed within ninety days from the date of expiry of aforesaid one year:

Provided further that while granting arms licence on inheritance or heirloom basis, the limit of two firearms shall not be exceeded.]" (emphasis supplied)

3. It is pertinent to mention that prior to the 2019 Amendment, the figure "two", as emphasised hereinabove, was "three".

4. It is stated that Respondent No.2 herein issued an e-mail to the Appellant on 12.12.2020 directing him to deposit the firearm in excess of two with the jurisdiction of Police Station or with an authorized Arms Dealer or to sell/transfer/gift it online through the Licensing Unit of the Delhi Police. It is stated by the Appellant that by virtue of being a member of National Rifle Association of India (NRAI), the Appellant was covered under Sect